An excellent piece:
http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/just-friends/#more-47326
Lot's to unpack from this one, but for now, I'm collecting it, filing it away.
Friday, December 13, 2013
Friday, September 13, 2013
Notes on GMOs
I don't like GMOs. My reasons for not liking them, however, when looked at honestly, are complex. Because of this, I've decided to clarify them, both for my own awareness, sanity, and for (should the occasion arise) arguing with the bozos.
A) Who benefits? This is probably my main question, and while it isn't precisely an "objection," it does pretty clearly imply one. Are GMOs needed? Are they really necessary? Most of what I've read suggested that they aren't. In any case, there seems to be no indication that other methods, many of which have been used for millenia, couldn't be just as successful in continuing and improving agriculture. GMers often claim that GMOs represent just one "tool in the toolbox" of developing better agricultural practices, but if there are better, cheaper, less tech-and-corporate intensive methods that are just as good (if not better) than why bother? Sure, it's always good to have a back up. But that's not how the most strident GMers are promoting GMOs. In any case, we'll return to this issue of utility in a bit.
B) Regarding health: the science is, to put it mildly, controversial. Several trusted organizations and experts seem to agree that the risk of negative health effects from consuming GMOs is vanishingly small. There are those who say just the opposite - that GMOs present a clear and present danger to human health - but these dissenters tend to be obvious crackpots, and they've resorted to some flagrant lies and distortions in the past. But while their voices are loud, they don't constitute a significant contribution to the conversation, so we can set them aside for now. On the other side of the debate are those who claim, in what seem to me to be measured, rational, and civil tones, that it's still too soon to tell. They concede that the results we've seen so far are encouraging, but these "responsible skeptics" (as I'll call them) would like to see different tests - longer, more rigorous, more transparent, and more obviously independent. They claim that politics and corporate power have muddied the waters. This would seem to be a truism, but it bears mentioning, given the haste of so many pro-GMO partisans to end the conversation entirely. For my own part, I'll avoid GMOs where I can, but not spend nights awake worrying about the GMOs I've undoubtedly ingested, and will probably ingest in the future.
C) Regarding the environment: Here's where the meat of the issue is, for me. It seems that the various transgenic innovations that have occurred so far have mostly served to perpetuate the Industrial Agriculture model that has done so much damage to the planet and its people. While proponents point to instances of pesticide use reduction, opponents point to the proliferation of superweeds. While GMers point to drought tolerance, skeptics point to a severe deficit of evidence that these engineered plants will ever live up to the hype, and to instances where GMOs have actually required greater water and fertilizer inputs. Both sides can have a tendency to cherry-pick, but the overall picture is clear enough: GMOs fit hand-in-glove into the Big Ag paradigm. They're mostly made and sold by big corporations as a for-profit enterprise, and take full advantage of the State-Corporate complex in terms of trade deals and patent monopolies. Certain yield increases and specific reductions of some pesticides exist on the record; but other studies show organic methods being just as effective, if correctly used. So again - why do we need these? Who benefits from their use?
- GMOs are a crutch. They do nothing, at least as they are employed now, to solve the overall problem of Industrial Agriculture, and nothing to move the world from that unsustainable system. It's a perfect illustration of the fundamental cynicism of capitalism: a solution from the very same people who brought you the problem. As many have noted, it only speeds us further down the "treadmill of dependence" on non-holistic technological solutions. It furthers the paradigm of competition with Nature, which we are doomed to lose. GMOs get us a little farther down the line, but their endgame is still disaster. They are a treatment of symptoms, not causes.
http://www.bostonreview.net/forum/truth-about-gmos/aggravating-problem
D) Regarding the social aspect: Setting aside questions of health and environmental safety and soundness, we come to the other great manifestation of the debate: the question of labeling. I was initially surprised to see how many GMO proponents were also opposed to labeling. Looking back on it now, this seems obviously naive. There are obvious reasons why Monsanto et al. are opposed to labeling; they see it as a threat to their continued market dominance, and as the incurring of a cost they'd rather not pay. But there are a lot of commentators out there, without a financial stake, to whom the benefit of the doubt can be given, who are still utterly opposed to labeling. Why? When the majority of Americans, according to polls, want labeling, why would they be so opposed? People are taking an interest; they want to know what's in their food. Why do so many want to deny them this information?
- It's an admission of defeat. Part of this is just pride; the GMers see labeling as a vindication of their opponents and a tacit indication that GMOs are unsafe/unhealthy.
- They see labels as being misleading; the idea being that they would only serve to sow confusion.
- They dislike what they perceive as the imperfections of labeling; that there are exemptions, etc.
- A generally elitist and undemocratic view. People are too foolish to be trusted with this information. They'll only screw it up; Monsanto will suffer unjustly.
D) Regarding the spiritual angle. Here's where things get a bit slippery. But viewed another way, here is where things get truly substantive. Qs of arrogance, of control. The idea of Nature having rights. Can we believe that Nature is sacred and still futz with it? Is this setting the bar too high? Berry being a major touchstone here. How do we act as good stewards? How do we behave respectfully, humbly, towards Nature, both for the inherent good of that, and for our own survival?
E) The Proponents: their reflexive recourse to sneering, to lecturing, to ad hominem attacks, their exceptionally thin skin, their frequent apologism for Monsanto et al. Their haste to end the discussion, rather than have an enlightened one.
Additional objection: GMOs are a crutch. They don't do anything to significantly shift us away from the current model of Industrial Ag.
9.23.13
Some interesting news in the Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/business/misgivings-about-how-a-weed-killer-affects-the-soil.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&src=rechp
A) Who benefits? This is probably my main question, and while it isn't precisely an "objection," it does pretty clearly imply one. Are GMOs needed? Are they really necessary? Most of what I've read suggested that they aren't. In any case, there seems to be no indication that other methods, many of which have been used for millenia, couldn't be just as successful in continuing and improving agriculture. GMers often claim that GMOs represent just one "tool in the toolbox" of developing better agricultural practices, but if there are better, cheaper, less tech-and-corporate intensive methods that are just as good (if not better) than why bother? Sure, it's always good to have a back up. But that's not how the most strident GMers are promoting GMOs. In any case, we'll return to this issue of utility in a bit.
B) Regarding health: the science is, to put it mildly, controversial. Several trusted organizations and experts seem to agree that the risk of negative health effects from consuming GMOs is vanishingly small. There are those who say just the opposite - that GMOs present a clear and present danger to human health - but these dissenters tend to be obvious crackpots, and they've resorted to some flagrant lies and distortions in the past. But while their voices are loud, they don't constitute a significant contribution to the conversation, so we can set them aside for now. On the other side of the debate are those who claim, in what seem to me to be measured, rational, and civil tones, that it's still too soon to tell. They concede that the results we've seen so far are encouraging, but these "responsible skeptics" (as I'll call them) would like to see different tests - longer, more rigorous, more transparent, and more obviously independent. They claim that politics and corporate power have muddied the waters. This would seem to be a truism, but it bears mentioning, given the haste of so many pro-GMO partisans to end the conversation entirely. For my own part, I'll avoid GMOs where I can, but not spend nights awake worrying about the GMOs I've undoubtedly ingested, and will probably ingest in the future.
C) Regarding the environment: Here's where the meat of the issue is, for me. It seems that the various transgenic innovations that have occurred so far have mostly served to perpetuate the Industrial Agriculture model that has done so much damage to the planet and its people. While proponents point to instances of pesticide use reduction, opponents point to the proliferation of superweeds. While GMers point to drought tolerance, skeptics point to a severe deficit of evidence that these engineered plants will ever live up to the hype, and to instances where GMOs have actually required greater water and fertilizer inputs. Both sides can have a tendency to cherry-pick, but the overall picture is clear enough: GMOs fit hand-in-glove into the Big Ag paradigm. They're mostly made and sold by big corporations as a for-profit enterprise, and take full advantage of the State-Corporate complex in terms of trade deals and patent monopolies. Certain yield increases and specific reductions of some pesticides exist on the record; but other studies show organic methods being just as effective, if correctly used. So again - why do we need these? Who benefits from their use?
- GMOs are a crutch. They do nothing, at least as they are employed now, to solve the overall problem of Industrial Agriculture, and nothing to move the world from that unsustainable system. It's a perfect illustration of the fundamental cynicism of capitalism: a solution from the very same people who brought you the problem. As many have noted, it only speeds us further down the "treadmill of dependence" on non-holistic technological solutions. It furthers the paradigm of competition with Nature, which we are doomed to lose. GMOs get us a little farther down the line, but their endgame is still disaster. They are a treatment of symptoms, not causes.
http://www.bostonreview.net/forum/truth-about-gmos/aggravating-problem
D) Regarding the social aspect: Setting aside questions of health and environmental safety and soundness, we come to the other great manifestation of the debate: the question of labeling. I was initially surprised to see how many GMO proponents were also opposed to labeling. Looking back on it now, this seems obviously naive. There are obvious reasons why Monsanto et al. are opposed to labeling; they see it as a threat to their continued market dominance, and as the incurring of a cost they'd rather not pay. But there are a lot of commentators out there, without a financial stake, to whom the benefit of the doubt can be given, who are still utterly opposed to labeling. Why? When the majority of Americans, according to polls, want labeling, why would they be so opposed? People are taking an interest; they want to know what's in their food. Why do so many want to deny them this information?
- It's an admission of defeat. Part of this is just pride; the GMers see labeling as a vindication of their opponents and a tacit indication that GMOs are unsafe/unhealthy.
- They see labels as being misleading; the idea being that they would only serve to sow confusion.
- They dislike what they perceive as the imperfections of labeling; that there are exemptions, etc.
- A generally elitist and undemocratic view. People are too foolish to be trusted with this information. They'll only screw it up; Monsanto will suffer unjustly.
D) Regarding the spiritual angle. Here's where things get a bit slippery. But viewed another way, here is where things get truly substantive. Qs of arrogance, of control. The idea of Nature having rights. Can we believe that Nature is sacred and still futz with it? Is this setting the bar too high? Berry being a major touchstone here. How do we act as good stewards? How do we behave respectfully, humbly, towards Nature, both for the inherent good of that, and for our own survival?
E) The Proponents: their reflexive recourse to sneering, to lecturing, to ad hominem attacks, their exceptionally thin skin, their frequent apologism for Monsanto et al. Their haste to end the discussion, rather than have an enlightened one.
Additional objection: GMOs are a crutch. They don't do anything to significantly shift us away from the current model of Industrial Ag.
9.23.13
Some interesting news in the Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/business/misgivings-about-how-a-weed-killer-affects-the-soil.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&src=rechp
Sunday, July 14, 2013
Thoughts on the Trayvon Martin Case
7.13.13
The verdict came down earlier today. Initial feelings of anger and (strangely) surprise, which quickly mellowed into sadness. So we're still here. America, 2013, and it's a roiling stew of pent-up hatred, confusion, fear, and savagery. There's no need to add to the din of righteous outrage over the result of the trial. All I can do, for my attempt and finding some peace, is to clarify my own thoughts about the whole awful affair. From what I can tell, nobody has an objective, coherent, compelling story of what happened on the night of Trayvon's murder. Zimmerman has his story, of course. And the only other person who really knows what happened is dead. In April, he would have turned 18.
The sad, frustrating fact is that this case, for all of its ominous overtones and dreary, shameful context, was not open-and-shut. It's entirely possible that Zimmerman's story, as unlikely as it might seem, is true. What we can reasonably say we know is this: Zimmerman, in his rather ludicrous capacity as gun-toting community watchman, was following Trayvon. Trayvon, who was - uncontroversially - minding his own business, became aware of this fact. Words, likely angry and/or hateful, were exchanged. A fight ensued. Zimmerman, apparently, got the shit beat out of him. I say apparently because of those photos, in which it's clear that he's been in a fearful scrap - he's got a bloody, broken-looking nose, and a few other assorted cuts and bumps, including a couple of bloody scratches (although no visible contusions) on the back of his head. I suppose it's possible that the wounds were self-inflicted by Zimmerman as a desperate means of providing evidence for a trumped-up story. Although there were at least two witnesses, nobody seems to have seen what was happening with enough clarity to say one way or the other who started the fight, or who seemed to be winning it. If Zimmerman had tampered with the scene, including his own body, he would've been able to get away with it. And even if that's all bunk - even if, at some point, Trayvon had the upper hand and successfully inflicted serious damage - it of course doesn't follow that the murder was in any way justifiable. But that's what we have - a one-sided story that ends in a killing. For now, the truth of what happened is between Zimmerman and God.
But the real outrage results from viewing this tragedy through a wider lens. It starts with Zimmerman's profiling of Trayvon. It results from a recognition that to be Black (and especially male) in American is to be under suspicion. 2013, after all these years. Zimmerman never should have gotten out of the car. He had no reason - no reason, although he had more than enough irrational hatred and fear - to suspect Trayvon of anything. For that matter, he shouldn't have had a gun. Even professional cops, who all too often fall short of exercising restraint or probity (especially in areas marked by racial diversity and tension, which of course describes thousands, if not millions of American communities and municipalities, to varying extents) at least have the benefit of training, a chain of command, an awareness of protocol, and, eventually, actual practicable experience. Zimmerman's role in Martin's death would have been ignominious to any self-respecting police, as well as to his department, and for good reason. Not necessarily because he shot Trayvon, but because he put himself in the position where he had (if we accept his version of events) no other choice but to do so. But Zimmerman, even given the best possible benefit of the doubt, was an overzealous, bigoted bungler. He was a wannabe with a gun. As he found out, repeatedly, he is moving in a society that extends to him the presumption not just of innocence but of righteousness. He is vouchsafed the right to harass, to operate as a quasi-vigilante, and if he feels the need to dispense deadly force, he will not only be forgiven, he will be lauded.
This is the world we live in. It's not just Florida. The same kind of assumptions are made in enlightened, cosmopolitan New York City, where rampant abuse of state power leads to the routine, systematic, institutionalized victimization of the minority population, especially Blacks and Muslims, but also Hispanics. At least NYC has gun laws that are considerably more sane, even if the underlying bigotry is just as hateful and corrosive to the remaining tatters of the "social fabric." It's still the case - in New York, Chicago, and my new home city of Los Angeles, that the majority of the victims and perpetrators of horrific violence are the oppressed members of the minority population, relegated to their ghettoes, widely excluded from the workforce, daily fed "a spoonful of hatred."
It's exactly that context that leads to the distortions of the truth, to what is ultimately a form of madness, that makes it "sane" for people to claim that Zimmerman was just doing his job, being a prudent self-styled enforcer of the peace. The assumptions underlying the despicable characterization of Trayvon are so base as to barely merit mentioning. But ultimately they are worth examining, since they provide evidence of just how twisted the conscience of America is, especially when it comes to the matter of young Black men. Before the trail, Zimmerman's defense attorneys launched a lurid smear campaign in an attempt to at least score some pre-emptive public opinion points. They are of course guilty of the worst kind of minstrelsy, painting a vile caricature of the slain victim, with the tacit message being that "he got what he deserved." There were photos from his phone of marijuana and a gun. One where he was wearing a grill. One where he was flipping the bird. The implied conclusions are obvious, if only because of the ruefully poor state of affairs in racial stereotyping: Travyon Martin was Just Another Black Teen. Meaning, generally, that he was a dangerous thug who smoked weed, owned and/or played with guns, had an irrational and reflexive disrespect for authority, and was always only seconds away from a lethal, savage, outburst of violence.
Evil, finally, is both the cause and effect of these assumptions, and they are instances of their realization are devastating. It's the sub-rosa message of the trial. It's possible that the jurors performed their task to the letter. Based on evidence and argument, given the laws and statutes, they might have had no other rational choice. But even the solemn edifice of the judicial system is subject to the tides of cultural belief and awareness. This ideology, the vile caricature of the Black male youth as perpetual threat, is what causes tragedies like Trayvon Martin's death. History keeps rhyming until we change the tune.
The verdict came down earlier today. Initial feelings of anger and (strangely) surprise, which quickly mellowed into sadness. So we're still here. America, 2013, and it's a roiling stew of pent-up hatred, confusion, fear, and savagery. There's no need to add to the din of righteous outrage over the result of the trial. All I can do, for my attempt and finding some peace, is to clarify my own thoughts about the whole awful affair. From what I can tell, nobody has an objective, coherent, compelling story of what happened on the night of Trayvon's murder. Zimmerman has his story, of course. And the only other person who really knows what happened is dead. In April, he would have turned 18.
The sad, frustrating fact is that this case, for all of its ominous overtones and dreary, shameful context, was not open-and-shut. It's entirely possible that Zimmerman's story, as unlikely as it might seem, is true. What we can reasonably say we know is this: Zimmerman, in his rather ludicrous capacity as gun-toting community watchman, was following Trayvon. Trayvon, who was - uncontroversially - minding his own business, became aware of this fact. Words, likely angry and/or hateful, were exchanged. A fight ensued. Zimmerman, apparently, got the shit beat out of him. I say apparently because of those photos, in which it's clear that he's been in a fearful scrap - he's got a bloody, broken-looking nose, and a few other assorted cuts and bumps, including a couple of bloody scratches (although no visible contusions) on the back of his head. I suppose it's possible that the wounds were self-inflicted by Zimmerman as a desperate means of providing evidence for a trumped-up story. Although there were at least two witnesses, nobody seems to have seen what was happening with enough clarity to say one way or the other who started the fight, or who seemed to be winning it. If Zimmerman had tampered with the scene, including his own body, he would've been able to get away with it. And even if that's all bunk - even if, at some point, Trayvon had the upper hand and successfully inflicted serious damage - it of course doesn't follow that the murder was in any way justifiable. But that's what we have - a one-sided story that ends in a killing. For now, the truth of what happened is between Zimmerman and God.
But the real outrage results from viewing this tragedy through a wider lens. It starts with Zimmerman's profiling of Trayvon. It results from a recognition that to be Black (and especially male) in American is to be under suspicion. 2013, after all these years. Zimmerman never should have gotten out of the car. He had no reason - no reason, although he had more than enough irrational hatred and fear - to suspect Trayvon of anything. For that matter, he shouldn't have had a gun. Even professional cops, who all too often fall short of exercising restraint or probity (especially in areas marked by racial diversity and tension, which of course describes thousands, if not millions of American communities and municipalities, to varying extents) at least have the benefit of training, a chain of command, an awareness of protocol, and, eventually, actual practicable experience. Zimmerman's role in Martin's death would have been ignominious to any self-respecting police, as well as to his department, and for good reason. Not necessarily because he shot Trayvon, but because he put himself in the position where he had (if we accept his version of events) no other choice but to do so. But Zimmerman, even given the best possible benefit of the doubt, was an overzealous, bigoted bungler. He was a wannabe with a gun. As he found out, repeatedly, he is moving in a society that extends to him the presumption not just of innocence but of righteousness. He is vouchsafed the right to harass, to operate as a quasi-vigilante, and if he feels the need to dispense deadly force, he will not only be forgiven, he will be lauded.
This is the world we live in. It's not just Florida. The same kind of assumptions are made in enlightened, cosmopolitan New York City, where rampant abuse of state power leads to the routine, systematic, institutionalized victimization of the minority population, especially Blacks and Muslims, but also Hispanics. At least NYC has gun laws that are considerably more sane, even if the underlying bigotry is just as hateful and corrosive to the remaining tatters of the "social fabric." It's still the case - in New York, Chicago, and my new home city of Los Angeles, that the majority of the victims and perpetrators of horrific violence are the oppressed members of the minority population, relegated to their ghettoes, widely excluded from the workforce, daily fed "a spoonful of hatred."
It's exactly that context that leads to the distortions of the truth, to what is ultimately a form of madness, that makes it "sane" for people to claim that Zimmerman was just doing his job, being a prudent self-styled enforcer of the peace. The assumptions underlying the despicable characterization of Trayvon are so base as to barely merit mentioning. But ultimately they are worth examining, since they provide evidence of just how twisted the conscience of America is, especially when it comes to the matter of young Black men. Before the trail, Zimmerman's defense attorneys launched a lurid smear campaign in an attempt to at least score some pre-emptive public opinion points. They are of course guilty of the worst kind of minstrelsy, painting a vile caricature of the slain victim, with the tacit message being that "he got what he deserved." There were photos from his phone of marijuana and a gun. One where he was wearing a grill. One where he was flipping the bird. The implied conclusions are obvious, if only because of the ruefully poor state of affairs in racial stereotyping: Travyon Martin was Just Another Black Teen. Meaning, generally, that he was a dangerous thug who smoked weed, owned and/or played with guns, had an irrational and reflexive disrespect for authority, and was always only seconds away from a lethal, savage, outburst of violence.
Evil, finally, is both the cause and effect of these assumptions, and they are instances of their realization are devastating. It's the sub-rosa message of the trial. It's possible that the jurors performed their task to the letter. Based on evidence and argument, given the laws and statutes, they might have had no other rational choice. But even the solemn edifice of the judicial system is subject to the tides of cultural belief and awareness. This ideology, the vile caricature of the Black male youth as perpetual threat, is what causes tragedies like Trayvon Martin's death. History keeps rhyming until we change the tune.
Monday, June 3, 2013
Health, Spirituality, and the Self
Major moving and shaking in this area. New horizons are opening up, horizons that have provided a great deal of food for thought, encouragement, stimulation, and intensive cogitation. Although he's by no means a new figure to me, Gabor Mate is a catalyst in these new ideas and in what I can perhaps, hopefully, call a raising of consciousness. Recently, my Mom had the pleasure of seeing him speak at a retreat in Massachusetts. She came back stimulated and passionately re-engaged with certain ideas - some new, some familiar, but all of them having to do with the bio-socio-spiritual worldview that Mate espouses as the key to living well. If any word fits, it might be "holistic." Mate has long been a proponent of the holistic worldview. In his case, being that his training is as a physician, it bears particular relevance to medicine. But as his own attitudes and awareness has matured and broadened - has itself become more holistic - he has come to recognize and discuss the relevance that such a worldview has on all aspects of life - work, play, sexuality, creativity, politics, etc. Put simply, Mate is a resplendant example of the well-rounded intellectual. Not just in the fact that his knowledge and his curiosity are wide-ranging, but in the fact that he has thought deeply, critically, and passionately about that knowledge, and that he has been willing to explore - to fail, to re-asses, to correct, to be humble and to still move forward. As such, he provides me with the hope that can be found from a good example, and from the new possibilities that his wisdom have illuminated for me and my experience of the world.
Here's a relevant clip, one of many that can be found on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLki68uLfjw
A couple of key concepts: "Fascism as the purest manifestation of the ego-driven mind" (a paraphrase.)
The idea of self-love, or self-acceptance, as being something ordinary, something everyday. Going to a talk. Seeking treatment and care. These are instances of self-love - not, as we are taught to believe, some overwhelming, cloud-parting experience of sublime light.
Jesus's quote that by bringing what is inside of you out, you will be healed - as the obverse of the modern, Western conception of "put this pill, this external object/treatment, into yourself, and you will be cured."
"It's difficult to think outside the box, because the thinking is the box." This is a quote from another author, which came to my by way of Gabor, and it's a keeper.
The previous issue of "self-love" is a crucial one, I think, and perhaps THE crucial one. It's what is directly in front of us - the purloined letter of our lives, hiding in plain view - and what we seem to miss, day in and day out. Even after we discover it, in fleeting moments, we often misplace it again - and it resumes its place in plain view, hidden. There's an enormous amount of work to be done in this area, for all of us, and it's in this area where I think I have the heaviest of all the heavy lifting to do.
Speaking to Mom earlier today, one of the topics that came up was the idea of being able to imagine, and by extension experience, our "best selves." Those moments - rare for me - when you are able to say about yourself that you are "really on." That capacity to surprise oneself with a finely tuned phrase, an impressive creative work, a gesture of particular kindness or compassion. That feeling - how fleeting and rare! - of being "comfortable in one's own skin." Gabor cites the example of a researcher who visited an aboriginal tribe in Malaysia and encountered two individuals who seemed exceptionally self-posessed. And we're all familiar with this topic, in fact - you can see it in photographs, National Geographic, etc - so often found in hunter-gatherer societies, or what remains of them - this radiant sense of ease that seems to emanate from the individuals. They are at peace with themselves, with the world. They don't struggle so much with themselves, they don't tend to run around in circles, seeking to be something other than what they are, always commanded by this or that manifestation of the super-ego, exhorting them to be better, to be other than, what they already are.
So, who/what am I? Besides, of course, a human being (although that alone seems to be enough of a challenge, some days). Am I the artist I seek to be? Am I the lusty, passionate, inspiring male?
At my best, I imagine myself as holding my own, or perhaps it would be more accurate to say belonging to a group of smart, talented, passionate, sincere, individuals. A community, better to say. And in some ways, of course, I already have that, thank Allah. But I am also acutely aware of the fact that I am living beneath my potential. That I could be doing much better for myself. My Mom corroborated this - she has felt the same, at times, but also in observing me, that I am a capable person with great potential, most of which is latent, unfortunately. How do I get from here to there? How do I feel more accepting of myself, and feel more acutely my membership, on a consistent basis, in such a way that leads me to really flourish?
But of course, this is something of a loaded question, since it can easily lead into the kind of lack of self-acceptance, of low self-regard, of always wanting to be beyond, to be other than, what you already are, that is so endemic to our society. So it's a difficult line to toe - how do you seek to accept yourself while also seeking to improve yourself? Or to improve your life, your activities?
Creativity can be a great way to do this. As Milch says, the creative act is an act of going out in spirit - the exact same kind of thing that Gabor talks about as going outside of ourselves to be healed. And one's attitude towards creativity is very important - what must be assiduously avoided is the kind of romanticizing of suffering that is so rife in Western culture, that praising of the artist who kills herself to work; that self-destructive glorification of utter, and ultimately destructive, devotion to the work above and beyond all else.
Also present, and highly controversial, is the idea that sickness can teach us; that we can learn from our ailments. The oft-cited anecdotal case of the person who claims that their cancer, their drug addiction, their heart attack, etc. - was "the best thing that ever happened to me." There's considerable reason, I think, to view such proclamations with a helping of salt, and also with a certain amount of pity and condescension. Isn't that just a narcissistic personal revisionism? How can something so traumatic, so debasing, possibly be considered the "best thing that ever happened to them?" And doesn't this lead to a dangerous level of self-centeredness, potentially souring into a kind of relentless self-blame? After all, it's a common phenomenon, maybe universal, I haven't seen the numbers - for sick people to fall into depressive states of guilt and self-reproach, blaming themeselves for their poor decision making, not taking better care of themselves, etc. The idea that bad things happen, sometimes even internal ones, which have at their root a personal cause, seems potentially harmful to me. And yet, I can't dismiss it entirely. And I can't allow myself to wholeheartedly indulge in the tendency to respond with pity and condescension - two classic distancing mechanisms, of course - to those people who claim to have learned something profound about themselves via a life-threatening crisis of health.
*Fake it till you make it.*
Here's a relevant clip, one of many that can be found on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLki68uLfjw
A couple of key concepts: "Fascism as the purest manifestation of the ego-driven mind" (a paraphrase.)
The idea of self-love, or self-acceptance, as being something ordinary, something everyday. Going to a talk. Seeking treatment and care. These are instances of self-love - not, as we are taught to believe, some overwhelming, cloud-parting experience of sublime light.
Jesus's quote that by bringing what is inside of you out, you will be healed - as the obverse of the modern, Western conception of "put this pill, this external object/treatment, into yourself, and you will be cured."
"It's difficult to think outside the box, because the thinking is the box." This is a quote from another author, which came to my by way of Gabor, and it's a keeper.
The previous issue of "self-love" is a crucial one, I think, and perhaps THE crucial one. It's what is directly in front of us - the purloined letter of our lives, hiding in plain view - and what we seem to miss, day in and day out. Even after we discover it, in fleeting moments, we often misplace it again - and it resumes its place in plain view, hidden. There's an enormous amount of work to be done in this area, for all of us, and it's in this area where I think I have the heaviest of all the heavy lifting to do.
Speaking to Mom earlier today, one of the topics that came up was the idea of being able to imagine, and by extension experience, our "best selves." Those moments - rare for me - when you are able to say about yourself that you are "really on." That capacity to surprise oneself with a finely tuned phrase, an impressive creative work, a gesture of particular kindness or compassion. That feeling - how fleeting and rare! - of being "comfortable in one's own skin." Gabor cites the example of a researcher who visited an aboriginal tribe in Malaysia and encountered two individuals who seemed exceptionally self-posessed. And we're all familiar with this topic, in fact - you can see it in photographs, National Geographic, etc - so often found in hunter-gatherer societies, or what remains of them - this radiant sense of ease that seems to emanate from the individuals. They are at peace with themselves, with the world. They don't struggle so much with themselves, they don't tend to run around in circles, seeking to be something other than what they are, always commanded by this or that manifestation of the super-ego, exhorting them to be better, to be other than, what they already are.
So, who/what am I? Besides, of course, a human being (although that alone seems to be enough of a challenge, some days). Am I the artist I seek to be? Am I the lusty, passionate, inspiring male?
At my best, I imagine myself as holding my own, or perhaps it would be more accurate to say belonging to a group of smart, talented, passionate, sincere, individuals. A community, better to say. And in some ways, of course, I already have that, thank Allah. But I am also acutely aware of the fact that I am living beneath my potential. That I could be doing much better for myself. My Mom corroborated this - she has felt the same, at times, but also in observing me, that I am a capable person with great potential, most of which is latent, unfortunately. How do I get from here to there? How do I feel more accepting of myself, and feel more acutely my membership, on a consistent basis, in such a way that leads me to really flourish?
But of course, this is something of a loaded question, since it can easily lead into the kind of lack of self-acceptance, of low self-regard, of always wanting to be beyond, to be other than, what you already are, that is so endemic to our society. So it's a difficult line to toe - how do you seek to accept yourself while also seeking to improve yourself? Or to improve your life, your activities?
Creativity can be a great way to do this. As Milch says, the creative act is an act of going out in spirit - the exact same kind of thing that Gabor talks about as going outside of ourselves to be healed. And one's attitude towards creativity is very important - what must be assiduously avoided is the kind of romanticizing of suffering that is so rife in Western culture, that praising of the artist who kills herself to work; that self-destructive glorification of utter, and ultimately destructive, devotion to the work above and beyond all else.
Also present, and highly controversial, is the idea that sickness can teach us; that we can learn from our ailments. The oft-cited anecdotal case of the person who claims that their cancer, their drug addiction, their heart attack, etc. - was "the best thing that ever happened to me." There's considerable reason, I think, to view such proclamations with a helping of salt, and also with a certain amount of pity and condescension. Isn't that just a narcissistic personal revisionism? How can something so traumatic, so debasing, possibly be considered the "best thing that ever happened to them?" And doesn't this lead to a dangerous level of self-centeredness, potentially souring into a kind of relentless self-blame? After all, it's a common phenomenon, maybe universal, I haven't seen the numbers - for sick people to fall into depressive states of guilt and self-reproach, blaming themeselves for their poor decision making, not taking better care of themselves, etc. The idea that bad things happen, sometimes even internal ones, which have at their root a personal cause, seems potentially harmful to me. And yet, I can't dismiss it entirely. And I can't allow myself to wholeheartedly indulge in the tendency to respond with pity and condescension - two classic distancing mechanisms, of course - to those people who claim to have learned something profound about themselves via a life-threatening crisis of health.
*Fake it till you make it.*
Saturday, April 13, 2013
4.14.13 - Action and Inaction on Climate Change
I've finally delved in to some of the postings and discussions on Real Climate. I visit the site maybe a few times a month, and generally don't go far into the posts, as they tend to be a bit heavy on technical language, and many are concerned with the day-to-day work of making climate models more accurate, interpreting the finer points of the latest reports or papers, etc. But a couple of recent posts caught my attention tonight, being as it is a late and brooding evening:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/04/movie-review-switch/#more-14943
It's a smart, funny review, but things get really interesting in the comments section. The debate over the viability of nuclear, to cite one topic, is mostly reasoned and intelligent.
This article is also good, but also frightening and depressing in equal measure:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-climate-bomb-failures-to-confront-the-unspeakable-and-the-way-ahead/5329875
All of this reading was initially prompted, by the way, by reading this comment in the New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/04/climate-change-out-of-obama-budget.html
Very troubling indeed.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/04/movie-review-switch/#more-14943
It's a smart, funny review, but things get really interesting in the comments section. The debate over the viability of nuclear, to cite one topic, is mostly reasoned and intelligent.
This article is also good, but also frightening and depressing in equal measure:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-climate-bomb-failures-to-confront-the-unspeakable-and-the-way-ahead/5329875
All of this reading was initially prompted, by the way, by reading this comment in the New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/04/climate-change-out-of-obama-budget.html
Very troubling indeed.
Friday, April 5, 2013
4/5/13 - New Discoveries
A new website to check with some regularity:
http://newlaborforum.cuny.edu/
A piece on the 2012 election, by Gordon Lafer of the University of Oregon, with some good, practical observations and ideas:
http://nlf.sagepub.com/content/22/1/15.full
This passage, regarding the leadership and ownership of the GOP, stood out for being succinct and accurate:
"The conservative movement is multifaceted, but the Grand Old Party (GOP) machinery is ultimately controlled by a small circle of billionaires and multinational corporations. When there is a conflict between the desires of the base and the dictates of the donors, the economic royalty almost always wins out. When pollsters ask Americans if we should sign a new NAFTA-style treaty with Vietnam and Malaysia, for instance, no one is more opposed than self-identified Tea Partiers. Yet despite the supposed clout of this grassroots juggernaut, on this issue the base is rudely ignored; the interests of the Kochs and Waltons trump the nationalism of the rank and file."
Lafer notes that workplace organizing is were unions can really shine - it's what they do better than anything.
This, also, is key:
"The core principle of union organizing is the belief that people can change; indeed, the work of organizing is almost nothing but that—helping scared people become brave, helping isolated people become unified and divided people find solidarity, helping timid and mild people feel comfortable taking militant action, and changing how people understand the boss, the workplace, and their own collective power."
And Lafer continues:
"But there is no place for such transformations in traditional electoral campaigns, where voters’ preferences are treated as fixed and campaigns are built on superficial poll-tested buzzwords aimed not at persuading people to think differently about issues but persuading them to associate particular candidates with something they already think."
Lafer strongly advocates for ballot initiatives, citing various successful examples, some of which occurred even in deep-red states like Idaho, where
"voters . . . overturned laws that the legislature had passed eliminating tenure and instituting “merit” pay based on standardized test scores."
There's also a nice shout-out to Occupy, and the way in which it can provide momentum and perspective to the fight for a better future. As Lafer wisely notes, there are things Occupy can do that Unions can't, and vice-versa.
http://newlaborforum.cuny.edu/
A piece on the 2012 election, by Gordon Lafer of the University of Oregon, with some good, practical observations and ideas:
http://nlf.sagepub.com/content/22/1/15.full
This passage, regarding the leadership and ownership of the GOP, stood out for being succinct and accurate:
"The conservative movement is multifaceted, but the Grand Old Party (GOP) machinery is ultimately controlled by a small circle of billionaires and multinational corporations. When there is a conflict between the desires of the base and the dictates of the donors, the economic royalty almost always wins out. When pollsters ask Americans if we should sign a new NAFTA-style treaty with Vietnam and Malaysia, for instance, no one is more opposed than self-identified Tea Partiers. Yet despite the supposed clout of this grassroots juggernaut, on this issue the base is rudely ignored; the interests of the Kochs and Waltons trump the nationalism of the rank and file."
Lafer notes that workplace organizing is were unions can really shine - it's what they do better than anything.
This, also, is key:
"The core principle of union organizing is the belief that people can change; indeed, the work of organizing is almost nothing but that—helping scared people become brave, helping isolated people become unified and divided people find solidarity, helping timid and mild people feel comfortable taking militant action, and changing how people understand the boss, the workplace, and their own collective power."
And Lafer continues:
"But there is no place for such transformations in traditional electoral campaigns, where voters’ preferences are treated as fixed and campaigns are built on superficial poll-tested buzzwords aimed not at persuading people to think differently about issues but persuading them to associate particular candidates with something they already think."
Lafer strongly advocates for ballot initiatives, citing various successful examples, some of which occurred even in deep-red states like Idaho, where
"voters . . . overturned laws that the legislature had passed eliminating tenure and instituting “merit” pay based on standardized test scores."
There's also a nice shout-out to Occupy, and the way in which it can provide momentum and perspective to the fight for a better future. As Lafer wisely notes, there are things Occupy can do that Unions can't, and vice-versa.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)